Conservatives: good news, bad news. [Archive] - SoonerFans.com Message Boards

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi

5/1/2009, 11:07 AM

Okla-homey

5/1/2009, 11:24 AM

the supreme court is a joke. its so frickin predictable it isn't even funny - 4 will side with the liberal slant, 4 will side with the conservative slant, kennedy breaks the tie.

the sheer number of 5-4 decisions lately is just crazy. we seriously need a constitutional amendment that will take the politics out of the supreme court - either revising the nomination process or pushing the tally for a supreme court decision to 6 out of 9 or 7 out of 9.

FWIW, FDR had a bill on the table he could have gotten thru a sympathetic Dem Congress that would have raised the total number of justices. He did so to intimidate the incumbent nine member Court into ruling his myriad recovery programs were Constitutional after they put the judical smackdown on several. It worked. They backed down, and it's still nine to this day.

Google: "switch in time saves nine"

Frozen Sooner

5/1/2009, 11:52 AM

Hispanic female. Book it.

Filibuster proof majority?

Go for the full Limbaugh head explosion and nominate William J. Clinton. ;) You don't need to be licensed to practice law to sit on the Supreme Court, after all.

Frozen Sooner

5/1/2009, 12:00 PM

the supreme court is a joke. its so frickin predictable it isn't even funny - 4 will side with the liberal slant, 4 will side with the conservative slant, kennedy breaks the tie.

the sheer number of 5-4 decisions lately is just crazy. we seriously need a constitutional amendment that will take the politics out of the supreme court - either revising the nomination process or pushing the tally for a supreme court decision to 6 out of 9 or 7 out of 9.

Horrible idea for two reasons.

1. The most dogmatic of either side would end up being able to block any decision.

2. It would devolve the power of the judiciary to the Circuit Courts. Since Circuit Court rulings are only pertinent to that circuit, you'd have much greater fracturing of the law.

Put it this way. jkm, would you really prefer it if the most liberal members of the Supreme Court had the effective ability to affirm any ruling the Ninth gets it in its head to make?

yermom

5/1/2009, 12:01 PM

Filibuster proof majority?

Go for the full Limbaugh head explosion and nominate William J. Clinton. ;) You don't need to be licensed to practice law to sit on the Supreme Court, after all.

oh my

NYC Poke

5/1/2009, 12:11 PM

Filibuster proof majority?

Go for the full Limbaugh head explosion and nominate William J. Clinton. ;) You don't need to be licensed to practice law to sit on the Supreme Court, after all.

He'd be boinking clerks left and right. No way Hillary would let him do it.

Frozen Sooner

5/1/2009, 12:15 PM

C'mon, you can't tell me it wouldn't be fun to know that at least SOMEONE was commando under his robes up there.

StoopTroup

5/1/2009, 12:20 PM

Do you have to be a U.S. Citizen to be appointed to the SCOTUS or just a copy of something that makes it look like your a Citizen?

Sooner98

5/1/2009, 12:34 PM

He'd be boinking clerks left and right. No way Hillary would let him do it.

Like he's not doing that already?

King Crimson

5/1/2009, 12:38 PM

Hispanic female. Book it.

and Clarence Thomas was somehow outside this logic?

Let's also not forget that Souter was appointed by Bush I before we hammer this thread into the predictable, reductionist partisan dialogue that goes:

A: my party is true to principles, the other party just plays shameless party "politics". this is an appointment by the POTUS to attempt to stack the court.

B: my party is true to principles, the other party just plays shameless party "politics". this is an appointment by the POTUS to attempt to stack the court.

A: this appointment is all PC and affirmative action. this person isn't qualified.

B: this appointment is all PC and affirmative action. this person isn't qualified.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi

5/1/2009, 01:07 PM

Horrible idea for two reasons.

1. The most dogmatic of either side would end up being able to block any decision.

2. It would devolve the power of the judiciary to the Circuit Courts. Since Circuit Court rulings are only pertinent to that circuit, you'd have much greater fracturing of the law.

Put it this way. jkm, would you really prefer it if the most liberal members of the Supreme Court had the effective ability to affirm any ruling the Ninth gets it in its head to make?

once again, the problem is that the judiciary has become increasingly political. there has to be a way of stripping/limiting it out to make the courts what they are supposed to be - impartial. gah, we need term limits or sumping.

jkm, the stolen pifwafwi

5/1/2009, 01:10 PM

and Clarence Thomas was somehow outside this logic?

Let's also not forget that Souter was appointed by Bush I before we hammer this thread into the predictable, reductionist partisan dialogue that goes:

A: my party is true to principles, the other party just plays shameless party "politics". this is an appointment by the POTUS to attempt to stack the court.

B: my party is true to principles, the other party just plays shameless party "politics". this is an appointment by the POTUS to attempt to stack the court.

A: this appointment is all PC and affirmative action. this person isn't qualified.

B: this appointment is all PC and affirmative action. this person isn't qualified.

the funny part about souter was that he was considered an impartial judge who only made decisions based on the law. once he made supreme court justice, he threw that out the window. looking back, snookering GHWB was a national pasttime.

theresonly1OU

5/1/2009, 01:10 PM

No way Hillary would let him do it.

Sure she would.

She'd just use her position to have them "clensed" so she doesn't have to deal with pesky reporters asking questions about cum-stained dresses and such.

Ardmore_Sooner

5/1/2009, 01:20 PM

NYC Poke

5/1/2009, 02:05 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't at least one Pub have to agree with whoever the nomination is before it goes to the Senate? The way things are going right now, what member of the GOP is going to give their consent with a far left-winger?

IF Franken is seated, the Republicans couldn't filibuster, and the Dems would have all the votes they need (simple majority) to confirm. If he's not seated, and Obama appoints a moderate, chances are a moderate R like Snowe would vote to end the filibuster.

soonerscuba

5/1/2009, 02:09 PM

Remember when Republicans screamed obstruction when Bush was appointing justices? I am curious to see if they keep their principles.

FWIW, I totally support their ability and right to engage lawfully within the deliberative body.

John Kochtoston

5/1/2009, 03:57 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't at least one Pub have to agree with whoever the nomination is before it goes to the Senate? The way things are going right now, what member of the GOP is going to give their consent with a far left-winger?

Here's an interesting article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/01/how-obamas-supreme-court_n_194688.html)* on that.

Basically, there seems to be a way to "filibuster" (for lack of a better term, since there will be no actual readings from the Manhattan White Pages or Scarne on Cards) if all of the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee agree. This may actually be easier with Specter as a Democrat (if he ends up caucasing [sp?]) with them this term.

However, there also seems to be a way for a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to drag the nomination out of committee and on to the floor.

Could get interesting. I'd advise Republicans to contribute heavily to the Norm Coleman Freedom Defense fund, or whatever the hell it is he's calling it.

*I'm well aware that the HuffPost leans left. However, this article isn't really about philosophy so much as it is about Senate procedure, so I think it's OK.

Frozen Sooner

5/1/2009, 10:20 PM

the funny part about souter was that he was considered an impartial judge who only made decisions based on the law. once he made supreme court justice, he threw that out the window. looking back, snookering GHWB was a national pasttime.

The United States judicial system is not now nor has it ever been founded on the civilian legal tradition (outside of Louisiana.) Judges under the common law tradition have always held broad power to interpret and balance laws against each other.

Frozen Sooner

5/1/2009, 10:23 PM

once again, the problem is that the judiciary has become increasingly political. there has to be a way of stripping/limiting it out to make the courts what they are supposed to be - impartial. gah, we need term limits or sumping.

Your suggestions would have the opposite effect. You really think someone who has to try to either get reappointed or faces the possibility of having to go into private practice will be less partial than someone who's appointed for life?

Hell, Souter's a great example of that-he wasn't beholden to the person who appointed him at all.

SanJoaquinSooner

5/2/2009, 10:47 AM

Do you have to be a U.S. Citizen to be appointed to the SCOTUS or just a copy of something that makes it look like your a Citizen?

not sure, but I would guess they check to make sure your documents aren't fake.

Okla-homey

5/2/2009, 01:16 PM

Your suggestions would have the opposite effect. You really think someone who has to try to either get reappointed or faces the possibility of having to go into private practice will be less partial than someone who's appointed for life?

Hell, Souter's a great example of that-he wasn't beholden to the person who appointed him at all.

FWIW, we had a huge scandal here in Okie-land spanning the 50's into the early 60's involving a couple Oklahoma Supremes who were on the take. In fact, to this day, if you cite to one of those decisions in a court document, you better make sure you've got later authority to back it up.

Here's the thing. I don't like electing judges. The practice induces politics from jump street. The fact they must face the voters makes it difficult for them to be competely objective.

Direct gubernatorial/presidential appointments/nominations has drawbacks too of course.

I have toyed with the notion that randomly selecting folks for life judicial terms from a list that has been vetted as to their qualifications and judicial acumen by a bi-partisan commission would be the way to go.

After all, that's the way we finally cracked the uber-political nut of military base closings and realignments. Nowadays, the bi-partisan Base Re-Alignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) prepares its findings and recommendations and Congress must vote straight up or down on the whole kit and kaboodle.

Seems to me if such a committee drew up a list of judicial candidates from which the president or governor (depending on which bench we're filling) could choose, that might be a better way.

StoopTroup

5/2/2009, 01:45 PM

I think they should run for Office like the POTUS.

Okla-homey

5/2/2009, 01:47 PM

I think they should run for Office like the POTUS.

jeez louise. That would be a nightmare. srsly.

This may sound uncharacteristically odd coming from me, but I'd love to see O nominate WJC. He's smart enough to do a good jorb and he's not nearly as foaming at the mouth liberal as some O might otherwise choose.

That said, my money's on this lady:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor

StoopTroup

5/2/2009, 02:01 PM

jeez louise. That would be a nightmare. srsly.

LOL...you know it.

I just hate seeing politics effect this part of our Goverment.

Not sure there is really much we can do about it either.

It's kind of why I have taken to not supporting either the Dems or the Pubs. SCOTUS is probably the most important part of our Government IMO. Keeping it moderate yet not to conservative is important to me. I hope Pres. Obama uses good sense on this one instead of making some sort of statement or "First".

Frozen Sooner

5/2/2009, 03:07 PM

FWIW, we had a huge scandal here in Okie-land spanning the 50's into the early 60's involving a couple Oklahoma Supremes who were on the take. In fact, to this day, if you cite to one of those decisions in a court document, you better make sure you've got later authority to back it up.

Here's the thing. I don't like electing judges. The practice induces politics from jump street. The fact they must face the voters makes it difficult for them to be competely objective.

Direct gubernatorial/presidential appointments/nominations has drawbacks too of course.

I have toyed with the notion that randomly selecting folks for life judicial terms from a list that has been vetted as to their qualifications and judicial acumen by a bi-partisan commission would be the way to go.

After all, that's the way we finally cracked the uber-political nut of military base closings and realignments. Nowadays, the bi-partisan Base Re-Alignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) prepares its findings and recommendations and Congress must vote straight up or down on the whole kit and kaboodle.

Seems to me if such a committee drew up a list of judicial candidates from which the president or governor (depending on which bench we're filling) could choose, that might be a better way.

That's almost exactly how Alaska selects their Supreme Court, believe it or not. Alaska's state constitution is a really good in, in my opinion. Since it was one of the last two written, it was able to take into account almost 200 years of what has and hasn't worked and what's required further clarification.

I agree with you on election of judges, by the way. Election of judges is a really good way to get some really bad legal reasoning on the bench. The founders made the judiciary anti-democratic on purpose.

Okla-homey

5/2/2009, 04:19 PM

That's almost exactly how Alaska selects their Supreme Court, believe it or not. Alaska's state constitution is a really good in, in my opinion. Since it was one of the last two written, it was able to take into account almost 200 years of what has and hasn't worked and what's required further clarification.

I agree with you on election of judges, by the way. Election of judges is a really good way to get some really bad legal reasoning on the bench. The founders made the judiciary anti-democratic on purpose.

RANT WARNING

<start rant> Here in the land of my birth, as you are aware, the assembled genuii on Lincoln Boulevard in the City are working real hard to lock and bolt the court house doors to folks (see, "lawsuit reform") and even to require legislative approval of Workers Comp court judges.

If the folks vote for it, woe be them on the day someone they care about is hurt by a defective product, gets skrewed by some corporation with deep pockets or some innattentive doc cuts off the wrong foot, kidney or tittay.

Okie 'Pubs can scream "frivilous lawsuit!" till the cows come home, but the bottomline is, but for some very expensive to litigate lawsuits, we'd all be driving around in cars lacking shatterproof glass and seatbelts and our houses would be regularly burning down as a result of cheaply wired appliances while our kids slept in flammable jammies.

Each of those things are now avoided as a direct result of some damn fine trial lawyers who put the wood to miserly manufacturers, thus empowering little guys who won't have a prayer if the boys and girls who sit under our shiny new capitol dome have their way.

Lawsuit reform = green light to faceless corporations to do whatever is cheapest and public safety bedamned<end rant>

John Kochtoston

5/2/2009, 04:25 PM

Election of judges is a horrible idea. The judiciary is about the only thing we've got that prevents democracy from becoming mob rule.

I'd be in favor of a single, 15- or 20-year appointment. That would help keep the bench balanced not only in terms of ideology, but also in terms of new ideas vs. old traditions. I don't really have a problem with the nomination/confirmation process, but a bipartisan commission is OK as well.

Somehow, I'm pretty sure it's not gonna be Big Bill. That would 1) give the disjointed Republican party something to galvanize itself around and 2) he'd never get the sign-off from the ABA. Not that that's a requirement, but I think Obama's wanting to re-include them in the nominating process.

olevetonahill

5/2/2009, 05:38 PM

They should just let ME pick em
game set match :D

John Kochtoston

5/3/2009, 12:45 AM

Those of you worried that Obama will nominate a Justice that requires gay couples to have abortions before they can get married might take comfort in this (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/us/politics/03obama.html?_r=1&hp).

StoopTroup

5/3/2009, 03:19 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein

Curly Bill

5/3/2009, 03:23 PM

Sunstein is a proponent of judicial minimalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_minimalism), arguing that judges should focus primarily on deciding the case at hand, and avoid making sweeping changes to the law or decisions that have broad-reaching effects.

OK, I like the above part about this guy.

King Crimson

5/3/2009, 03:24 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein

Sunstein would be an interesting pick, IMO. i've used some of his stuff on media in classes. he's a classic believer in "Republic".

Curly Bill

5/3/2009, 03:55 PM

King, would he be someone that both sides would likely find at least acceptable?

...or would one side love him and the other hate him?

King Crimson

5/3/2009, 04:20 PM

King, would he be someone that both sides would likely find at least acceptable?

...or would one side love him and the other hate him?

i don't think he's someone most of the "true conservatives" would like since he's an academic (which means Trotskyite homosexual kitten killer to the AM radio people). I do think he's someone who would make decisions based on principle. he taught at U Chicago for 25 years which is a pretty conservative joint.

honestly, Curly, I don't know. I'm not a huge fan of Sunstein from an academic standpoint,......but i don't think he's the worst appointment ever. as a writer, he's targeted a popular audience and i think that's to be respected (with a commitment to an educated, decision making populace in mind).

i do know you can find the first chapter of his book Republic.com on line if you google.